Fred1245
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Fred1245
-
-
13 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Redeploy seems to be the reaction of choice if your opponent tries to charge from a significant distance away. From anything closer than 5" or so, you might be better off taking +1 to saves instead. Apparently, the zones of control around objectives are set to get shrink too, from 6" to 3". So redeploy will probably force you to give up control.
So we can plunk Archaon on an objective and it's literally impossible to take it without killing him?
Cool. Cool cool cool.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:
I think tournament play will last longer no matter what. The new coherency rules seem like they will promote a lot of discussion. At least untill ppl get used to it.
People aren't generally going to 'get used to it' AT tournaments. Most players will be familiar enough for it not to be an issues. Especially at big events.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Malakree said:
If stuff really is going up ~15% we might see some tournaments transition to 2.5k as the base size. It would even bring the board size up to ~ the current standard.
We absolutely will not. Tournaments are sighing in relief at the idea of games getting smaller and faster. Having 3+ hour rounds isn't something anyone wants (or can have, venues have closong times after all.)
-
7
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Enoby said:
From a source that has correctly leaked things in the past:
I very much disagree that a 15% bump would not make DoK dog...stuff unless everyone else got about the same bump.
-
2 hours ago, Malakithe said:
But I want chorfs now
I also want chorfs but I want them to end up being their own thing that has nothing to do with Chaos Dwarves. 'Yeah, turns out the leaker thought it was short for 'Chaos Dwarf' when really Chorfs are just the new Cat People line.'
-
I'm going to say it here now:
I think stand and shoot is nowhere near as strong as the d6 flee.
Unleash hell is very showy. Ooh Such shoots, much Damages! Pretty colors! But ultimately it's an anemic last stand for the majority of archer models. You'll get some extra casualties you wouldn't have in AoS2, but end up still trapped in combat and still probably being killed the majority of the time.
The D6 flee is game deciding. I guarantee good players will win at least 1 game per event with this ability alone.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Ganigumo said:
I do actually think the strength of armies hurt/buffed by the battalion changed is generally random. Which is the point, it doesn't improve balance at all, it just shakes things up while cutting an interesting piece of the game out, but everyone always pushes back saying it does make the balance of the game better. There are winners and losers at both ends of the power spectrum, but the ones at the bottom are hurt more, because armies at the bottom have less they can fall back on, armies like Gitz, Beasts of chaos, Khorne, and Slaanesh. So from my perspective the conversation should be around whether shaking the meta up like this is worth what we're giving up, which I don't think it is. I'd rather we have just taken power out of battalions being present, or solved the accessibility issue by introducing general battalions alongside warscroll ones (raising the floor of battalion quality and buffing some strong armies) because then we're being honest about the problem we're solving instead of shaking everything up and praying things land in a better spot (which they wont, because while its "random" whether high or low tier armies are hurt by the change, we actually have the benefit of being able to predict the winners and losers because the armies themselves actually exist, and top tier armies generally aren't using battalions as a crutch).
My argument about the stronger armies getting better is mostly aimed at the other rules changes, although seraphon (specifically) will definitely benefit from the new battalions, as the strongest armies are already abusing things like teleports, shooting, and 25mm bases, all of which seem to be getting better, or are impacted less by the changes.
1) Yes but the new ones are boring.
2) You know your rules, and your opponent knows their rules, and if you're unsure ask. its a social game and nobody should be expected to know the rules for their opponents army before starting the game.
If complexity was the issue they should've just removed them entirely instead of giving us something boring to keep track of.1. So were the old ones. Just in a more stupid way. Half the factions in the game had 0 good battalions and 90% of the list total was garbage. 'Oh, it's so exciting to pay 140pts to get a command point that's slightly worse than a regular command point for taking models I was gonna take anyway!' Said no DoK player ever.
2. In tournaments (the only place the rules actually matter. Don't @ me.) you are on a timetable. The less rules of your opponents you have to memorize the better. You simply don't have time to cover every tactical vector something like Changehost has and your opponent is only obligated to explain what a rule DOES not what he plans to use it for. So yes, nominally you can ask your opponent to explain his rules, but that's not always going to be enough to prevent getting 'gotcha'd'.
(The 'how much information is my opponent required to give me in order to qualify as good sportsmanship' debate is a serparate issue. Again don't @me.
And yeah, I would have been totally happy to see them removed too. This is a fair compromise.
-
26 minutes ago, Sleboda said:
Somewhere in the recent rules releases, maybe even here on this forum, there was a reference to "ward saves." It looks like Invulnerable Saves are coming to AoS.
Those are Feel no Pains, aka 'death saves' aka that thing we already have.
AoS already has invul saves in the form of treating AP-3 or higher as being massively more valuable than mortal wounds.
-
1 hour ago, Ganigumo said:
While true its not like they've ever been particularly good at pointing. Spider riders haven't budged an inch since Gitz came out for instance.
I don't disagree that the new stuff isn't complex, but neither were battalion effects, and it's just more stuff to keep in mind while playing, which isn't something I think the game needed more of. Its the same kind of shallow complexity 40k is full of (that I also don't like).
Battalion effects were MASSIVELY more complicated than this for 2 reasons.
1. These all have the effect of taking an existing ability you have (command ability or enhancement) and making it free once per battle. With the exception of the one drop battalion, you already know exactly how these function just by knowing how CAs and Enhancements work. Previous battalions could end up being basically anything and would often require specific faction knowledge to even know what they DO.
2. They are consistent across factions: I've played against the changehost dozens of times and I still don't know exactly what it does and if my opponent was using it correctly or not. With these I can look at his army and know EXACTLY what his bonus is and EXACTLY when he can do it just based on knowing the core rules. Remember, it's never been only YOUR battalions you need to know the rules for.
Whatever else they do these cut down on a lot of complexity, minimize the amount of bespoke memorization players need to do, and help curb unfair play(both intentional and unintentional).
-
2
-
-
On 6/7/2021 at 1:13 PM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Are you saying DoK is too strong or too weak? Because I know they are usually regarded as being in the top third of armies at the least, power-wise.
They WERE one of the strongest armies, possibly even straight broken after Broken Realms Morathi.
The new book nerfed Every. Single. Aspect of the army except bloodwrack shrines and Morathi herself and offered nothing in return.
It was a joke of a book that gets overlooked because it wasn't as bad as the Slaanesh rewrite was.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, PJetski said:
It depends on how such a rule is worded.
If it's a global rule about modifiers, then yes Rend is capped at -1 since it is a modifier to save rolls.
If it's a targeted rule about hit/wound rolls, then no Rend is excluded because it has nothing to do with hit or wound rolls.
It could also specify save rolls but specifically exclude Rend.
I was referring to the specific scenario the previous commentor presented. He specified that it did affect saves. It's been a while since I saw the article in question that mentioned the caps and wasn't sure if saves had been specifically mentioned.
As it turns out, I AM aware that if the rule doesn't cap saves, saves would in fact not be capped. Thank you.
-
1 minute ago, Overread said:
Depends, we might see some kind of combat system that supports separate units uniting their attacks as if one unit; for example.
We could also see more 2 or 3 inch weapons appear for models on larger bases and such.
There are ways that it can be dealt with; but ultimately it is going to change things. One bonus is that it will start to stop letting people just do long strings of troops covering huge swathes of the table
That's actually something it doesn't stop. As long as you have a 25mm base, you can still do that no problem.
As a rule it really only effects large units of large models.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:
bonuses are capped at +1 though, unless that is only for saves and battleshock
Wouldn't that mean rend would be capped at -1?
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Overread said:
I like how GW is steadily making strings of infantry less and less viable. Though a part of me is wondering if we are going to end up with complex rules that basically end up with units fighting almost like they are in rank and file style all the time.
When you couple it with the change to points whereby you no longer get a bonus for full units; it does seem to suggest that GW might be building a system that favours smaller units of big models and larger units of smaller ones. That said they might make smaller ones more susceptible to ranged fire and such.
Interesting times are coming it seems!
What it's gonna end up being is that nothing on a 32mm base or bigger is going to be in a unit larger than 10. 40mm larger than 5.
This rule sort of works in 40k because of 2" coherency. In sigmar it's just going to punt a bunch of stuff out of the game.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Keilerei said:
Are we getting this right? I am not a native speaker, but could it just mean 6“ in 3 dimensions vertically? From a piece of terrain down to the table?
asking for my 12 Gore gruntas
Coherency is measured from the base.
-
1 hour ago, GutrotSpume said:
Conga lines suck but this is way over restrictive. Should just make it 11 plus models and it would have been fine but as it is why would you ever take elite units in more than 3’s or cav units in more than 5’s.
2" coherence would make it fine.
-
1
-
-
On 6/4/2021 at 1:54 PM, 5kaven5lave said:
Morathi being a Hero and Monster vs. Cauldrons and Shrines now losing Look Out, Sir! does feel like another big swing towards taking Morathi rather than not now.
Nothing about the cauldron matters but the +1 save aura and blessing of Khaine anyway.
Changes to prayers mean it an't fight until turn 3, changes to witchbrew mean it can't buff, changes to the army mean the slaughter cauldron CA went from ' highly situational' to 'largely useless'.
Morathi would have to go to 1000+ points to not still be a better option for anything but a 'turtling stalker' build which doesn't work anymore because they nerfed invocations.
-
7 minutes ago, Mutton said:
The new priest rules don't feel particular useful for DoK. They're still stuck only chanting one prayer, and Bless is redundant for the allegiance. Actually now it seems easier for an enemy priest to plink our hags down (since hags already love to stab themselves).
Also our invocation got massacred. Now enemy priests can push it off the table on a 4+ from 4 feet away.
80pts, 67% chance of failure.
-
35 minutes ago, Mutton said:
I see they've finally gone back to using "ward" for their save terminology. Maybe now we can stop wasting text space with "roll a dice if they suffer a wound or mortal wound, on a X+ it is negated."
Most people call in a FNP or a death save or a ward save anyway.
-
Playing other games. The DoK book was so uttely disappointing that I decided to wait out until 3rd to even try it.
If it's still bad in 3rd I'll see you guys in 3 years when they get another book.
-
. ZSo with the new rules for invocations...what exactly is the point of DoK's fist thing?
You're paying 80pts for a 66% chance at -1 damage, that your opponent has a 50% chance at getting rid of before you can actually use it.
That's 80pts for a 67% chance of literally doing nothing.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Ogregut said:
I don't do tournament but I do see your point. As someone said eariler, play whatever your local scene plays.
The change isn't that massive however, 2 inches off either short table side and 6 inches off either long side. I bet after a couple of games, you won't even notice a diffrence
For regular movement/objectives/deployment you are absolutely correct that the difference isn't huge.
From my experience making the transition in 40k, any ability that has a 'outside of 9"' clause is radically different to use. The smaller board feels downright claustrophobic in those cases. Since most armies now have abilities like that, keeping a consistent board size is pretty important.
Again, this is only for tournament play and tournament practice.
-
23 minutes ago, Ogregut said:
Doesn't mean you have to tho.
It's easy enough to convert the battleplans, we're only talking a few inches either side.
If I'm right in the sizing it's gone from 72" x 48" to 60" x 44".
Just add 6" to both sides no mans land and your set.
You're handicapping yourself significantly if you do that and then intend to play in tournaments. The smaller board size actually has an incredibly significant impact, especially on teleporter/deepstrikers. Playing practice games on the larger board would have dubious value, potentially even being actively detrimental to success.
If you routinely play/care about tournaments, then you're locked in to what the tournament standard is except for absolute fluff games.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:
People keep happily buying it no matter how sub-par the quality is. Space Marines for example had pretty much never been top tier until the end of 8th edition, but they've still flown off the shelves like hot cakes for decades.
Why should GW invest manpower and money into making sure they have solid internal and external balance, well-written rules, etc, when they're going to sell just as well regardless? That's probably how they see it. Other games live and die by the quality of their game/rules - and even then, it's often not enough - but one consistent is GW's popularity ensures they don't have to care.
This is actually not correct, at least without a ton more qualifiers. Space Wolves were a top tier army in 5th until GK came out and was possibly the most OP faction 40k had seen up until then. 6th edition marines were decent but in 7th marines were a top tier army from when their codex came out to the end of the edition(battle company and all the many flavors of marine death stars) then in the indexes marines were crazy OP until multiple stormraven nerfs then marines were the best by default due to being the first codex.
So some flavor of marine has been top tier since at least 5th.
AoS 3 New Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
While some players may choose to deliberately cheat, most people who intend to go to events will understand that they're going to NEED to play coherency correctly so are going to do so.